New Delhi11 minutes ago
- copy link
Hearing is going on in the Supreme Court for the third consecutive day on Thursday on 20 petitions demanding legal recognition of same sex marriage. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, said that it will be our (same sex couple’s) decision that with whom we will stay for how long.
Singhvi said- Why should we announce a month in advance to the whole world that we are going to get married? Singhvi was referring to the rule of the Special Marriage Act, in which two partners have to express their desire to marry through a form.
After listening to the arguments of Singhvi, the Supreme Court said – Along with removing homosexuality from the category of crime, you should realize that we have recognized the relationship between two people of same sex.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta is representing the Center on this matter. Senior advocates Abhishek Manusinghvi and Mukul Rohatgi are defending the petitions in favor of same sex marriage. The case is being heard by a five-judge constitutional bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice SK Kaul, Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Hima Kohli.
Today 3 arguments from the side of the petitioners…
- First: Abhishek Manu Singhvi said- It will be only my (petitioners) decision. It will be the decision of my heart. With whom and for how long I will live, it is my right. Why should I tell the world a month in advance that we are getting married? This provision of Special Marriage Act is unconstitutional as you are infringing on my privacy before marriage formalities. They are telling me to invite protest by expressing my intentions.
- Second: He said, “Which couple in common marriages tells the world that they are going to get married before marriage? Leave common marriages, such a rule does not even apply in personal law like Parsi Act. Then for us people Why so? It is my decision only and only.
- Third: During the debate on the minimum age of same sex marriage, Singhvi said, “The simple way is that the rule of minimum age should be implemented only on those same sex couples who want to get married. There is a need to rip up the law.” No. The second question may arise regarding the trans category, so my answer to this would be that in 99% of the cases gender should be determined on the basis of what that person has told.
Supreme Court’s comment
On legalizing same sex marriage, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, “From the time we decriminalized homosexuality, it became clear that it is not a one-time relationship. Not only did we recognize such relationships by removing them from the category, but we also told that same-sex couples can also live in stable relationships.
Now we have to redefine the changing perceptions about marriage. Because the question is, is it necessary for marriage to have two partners who belong to different genders? Here the law has been able to accept that there can be two different genders for marriage, but it is not necessary for the definition of marriage.
On Wednesday, the court had said – the case has to be finished within the stipulated time, the rest of the cases are also in waiting.
During the second day’s hearing, CJI Chandrachud had said that the government does not have the data to prove that same sex marriage is an elite class concept. On the other hand, for lengthy arguments, Justice Kaul said that the matter has to be concluded in due course, as other matters are also waiting to be heard.
Now read the news related to the hearing of the first 2 days…
Hearing of the second day – the petitioner said – the status of marriage gives financial support and security
Hearing on 20 petitions seeking legal recognition of same sex marriage ended in the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the second day. On Thursday, the hearing will begin with the arguments of Advocate Singhvi. During the hearing, the CJI said that the government does not have this data, which proves that same sex marriage is a concept of elite class. Read full news…
First day’s hearing – The government said – there should be no hearing on the matter; CJI said – exercise for the next generations
Opposing the recognition of same sex, the central government said that we are getting entangled in this matter. We are saying that the matter should not be heard at all. This is a very sensitive issue. On this, the court said that the exercise of hearing is being done for generations to come. The court and Parliament will decide on this later. Read full news…